Chennai Court December 1962 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Rukmani Company (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-18-1962
Reported in: [1964]52ITR599(Mad)
SRINIVASAN J. - The assessee, Rukmani Company Private Ltd., purchased in March, 1947, a decree from one Sundaram Chettiar. Sundaram Chettiar held the decree against the zamindar of Oothumalai and it was for the face value of Rs. 1,44,035. The assessee made the purchase for the sum of Rs. 41,200 only. Thereafter, various steps were taken by the assessee in the court to recover the decreed amount. A short while after the purchase, the enactment abolishing zamindaries came into force, as a result of which the assessee as one of the creditors of the zamindar was enabled to obtain payment from the compensation amount payable to the zamindar by the State. During the account year relevant to the assessment year 1956-57, the assessee realised a sum of Rs. 1,38,240 and after deducting his total outlay upto that date of Rs. 69,360 made a profit of Rs. 68,880. In the return for that assessment year, however, the assessee while showing the profit,claimed exemption as income of a casual and non-rec...
P.S. Gulam Mohamed Rowther Vs. Narendranath Reddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-17-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Mad261
Ganapatia Pillai, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of two ordersmade by the Subordinate Judge of Nilgiris at Ootacamund in two applications made before him, E. A. Nos. 105 and 106 of 1958 for the purpose of setting aside two previous orders of the same Courtrecording full satisfaction of two decrees O. S.No. 80 of 1955 and O. S. No. 184 of 1953. Thethird respondent (third defendant) is the appellant in both these appeals. In O. S. No. 80 of 1955, a money decree was passed for Rs. 17,775 and odd against the appellant and others. In O. S. No. 184of 1953 a money decree was passed against the appellant and others for Rs. 11,425-12-0, subsequent to the passing of both these decrees, parties came together on 24-6-1956 and entered into an arrangement for the adjustment of both decree amounts. Under that arrangement Rs. 9000 had to be paid in cash to the decree-holder on or before the 24th July 1956 and four items of immoveable property had to be conveyed to the decree-holder before that date...
Pannalal Jagannath Prasad Gupta Vs. the State of Madras Represented by ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-13-1962
Reported in: (1963)1MLJ415
M. Anantanarayanan, J.1. This is an appeal by a certain Pannalal Jagannath Prasad Gupta from the judgment of Veeraswami, J., in W.P. No. 218 of 1959 1 upholding the order by Government exempting certain premises from Section 7 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, by virtue of powers vested in Government under Section 13 of the Act. The facts are very simple, and the essential facts might be set forth as follows.2. By virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 705, Home, dated 19th March, 1958, Government exempted premises No. 140/2, Audiappa Naicken Street and 17/1, Anna Pillai Street, G.T., Madras from the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, in favour of the landlord (second appellant). The appellant instituted the writ proceeding on the ground that the premises with which we are now concerned (No. 140/2, Audiappa Naicken Street) constituted a non-residential building in his occupation, for the purpose of his business, for over thirty years, and that the second respondent, who was alread...
South India Corporation (Madras) Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of I ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad200
Jagadisan, J.1. The question that has been referred to us is, 'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision of S. 23-A was applicable to We assessee for the assessment year 1955-56?'2. The question for decision lies in a very short compass. The assessee is a private limited company. Its profits available for distribution in the year of assessment amounted to Rs. 3,19,016. This sum is arrived at by taking the total assessed income of Rs. 5,53,630 and deducting therefrom the sum of Rs. 2, 34,614 the taxes due thereon. The assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1955-56 showing an income of Rs. 4,01,676 after adjusting a business loss of Rs. 21740. The assessee further claimed that during the year ended 31-3-1955, the previous year' a further loss of Rs. 15,29,455 had resulted as a sum of Rs. 18,93,133, was paid under the settlement with the Income-tax investigation commission.3. The crucial words of Section 23-A which have to be considered and upon whi...
South India Corporation (Madras) Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Inco ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-12-1962
Reported in: [1963]50ITR758(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The question that has been referred to us is, 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provision of section 23A was applicable to the assessee for the assessment year 1955-56 ?'The question for decision lies in a very short compass. The assessee is a private limited company. Its profits available for distribution in the year of assessment amounted to Rs. 3,19,016. This sum is arrived at by taking the total assessed income of Rs. 5,53,630 and deducting therefrom the sum of Rs. 2,34,614, the taxes due thereon. The assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1955-56 showing an income of Rs. 4,01,676 after adjusting a business loss of Rs. 21,740. The assessee further claimed that during the year ended March 31, 1955, 'the previous year', a further loss of Rs. 15,29,455 had resulted, as a sum of Rs. 18, 93,133 was paid under the settlement with the Income-tax Investigation Commission.The crucial words of section 23A which have to be considered and ...
A. Natesan Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-11-1962
Reported in: [1963]49ITR941(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The following question has been referred under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the application of the provisions of section 16(3) (a) (iv) and in adding the interest income of the minor children of the assessee to the assessees assessable income ?'The assessee and his sons were members of a Hindu undivided family but the family did not own any property in common. This was a joint family without property. The assessee, however, owned large extent of properties and was carrying on several businesses. On December 8, 1955, he executed a document styled as a deed of partition, in and by which wet and dry lands, houses and sites belonging to him exclusively as separate self-acquired properties were divided and specific items allotted to each one of his sons, one of whom was a major and the other three were minors. He himself did not take any share in that division....
S. Kuppuswami Mudaliar Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-10-1962
Reported in: [1964]51ITR757(Mad)
JAGADISAN J. - The questions that stand referred under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act are as follows :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that Rs. 40,000 constituted the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources assessable to tax in the assessment year 1949-50 ?Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 12,230 constituted the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources liable to be assessed in the year of assessment 1950-51 ?'The assessee is a tanner carrying on business at Ambur. In the year of account ended 31st March, 1947, the previous year for the assessment year 1947-48, the Income-tax Officer found in the assessees books of account a shortage of 7,182 skins not accounted for. When called upon to explain this shortage the assessee submitted that the skins might have been lost during his absence from Ambur for about 40 days du...
In Re : Soma Veerappa
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-07-1962
Reported in: 1965CriLJ392
ORDERSadasivam, J.1. Petitioner Soma Veerappa the second accused in C.C. Nos. 8522 to 8528 of 1962 on the file of the Eighth Presidency Magistrate, Madras, has filed this petition to revise the order of the Eighth Presidency Magistrate rejecting his petition under Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code. Petitioner is the managing director of Tiruvalluvar Velanmai Kazhagam (Pt) Ltd, At the instance on a shareholder, he was prosecuted for offences under Section 159 read with, Sections 162 and 223 of the Companies Act; in C.C. No. 1 of 1961, on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Devakottai for failure to submit annual return and balance sheet for tho period 1956-1960; and he was acquitted in that case. P.W. 2 in that case was a clerk in the office of the Registrar of Companies. The present prosecution against the petitioner and others is for the same offences for the period between 1956 and 1959. The learned Eighth Presidency Magistrate has rejected the plea of autrefois acq...
S.V.P. Chockalingam Chettiar Vs. V.C. Rajarathnam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1962
Reported in: AIR1964Mad415
S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the second judgment-debtor under a decree passed by the District Court of the Civil and Military Station, Bangalore, against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai directing execution to proceed. The execution proceedings had a chequered career and it will be useful to refer to it if only to appreciate the only point now in controversy between the parties.2. The first judgment-debtor, G. V. Kaman, was carrying on business under the name of Imperial Railway Materials Corporation at Krishna Rao Naidu St. Thyagarayanagar, Madras. He had his residence at No. 19 Crescent Park St. Thyagarayanagar, Madras. The appellant who is the second judgment-debtor belongs to Shanmuganathapuram, a village three miles from Devakottai. He was a friend of G. V. Raman and admittedly he used to stay in the latter's place of business whenever he used to come to Madras. It is also admitted that he resided during. January-February 1937 at No. 19 Cr...
G. Thangavel Nadar Vs. the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-06-1962
Reported in: [1963]14STC420(Mad)
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that this Court may call for the records of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer dated 30th November, 1960, in assessment No. B. 4165/5960 and issue a writ of certiorari quashing that order. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the assessment year 1959-60 on a turnover of Rs. 2 lakhs in the order above impugned. By the same order the assessing authority levied a penalty of Rs. 3,000 under Section 12(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. This order was made after the issue of a notice dated 31st October, 1960, to the petitioner proposing to levy the penalty for his failure to submit a return. The petitioner objected to the levy on the ground that all his account books had been taken away by the Special Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tanjore, on 21st April, 1960, and they were not available with him to enable him to make a return on or before 1st May, 1960, as the notice required him to do. Neve...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »